Sign In
Create Account
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe on Youtube
Hi! I have a blog like website with articles that contain each at least 10 big images and this consumes me a lot of bandwidth each month. I need a CHEAP, reliable and fast host for my images.
If the host provides the possibility to upload images directly via PHP it`s better, but not necessary.
Any ideas ?
Thanks in advice!
2
Best way to host images for a large blog with huge bandwidth usage ?
Started by Csabi, Dec 30 2011 01:01 PM
4 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:01 PM
Csabi
-
- Members
-
- 62 posts
Learning Programmer
Back to top|
|
|
#2
Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:27 PM
Alexander
-
- Moderators
-
- 4,120 posts
It's Science!
- Location:Vancouver, Eh! Cleverness: 200
I would start looking at a content distribution network, unless you care about the image coming from photobucket or a paid account.
Amazon Cloudfront supports files up to 20GBs and in most areas costs $0.120 / GB, you cannot go wrong with that for cost.
Amazon CloudFront
If I recall you've got some nice APIs to upload files as an added bonus.
There are many other CDNs out there, probably you do not need to check the others out for this small task, Amazon does not charge large costs up front assuming you'll do a lot of content.
Amazon Cloudfront supports files up to 20GBs and in most areas costs $0.120 / GB, you cannot go wrong with that for cost.
Amazon CloudFront
If I recall you've got some nice APIs to upload files as an added bonus.
There are many other CDNs out there, probably you do not need to check the others out for this small task, Amazon does not charge large costs up front assuming you'll do a lot of content.
Be sure to read the updated FAQ! || Health is achieved through the same 10,000 steps.
If a suggested code/method fails, informing us is less important than telling us why or what errors occurred.
If a suggested code/method fails, informing us is less important than telling us why or what errors occurred.
#3
Posted 31 December 2011 - 01:44 AM
Csabi
-
- Members
-
- 62 posts
Learning Programmer
Thanks, I`we searched for this and I have another question:
What`s the difference between amazon cloudfront and amazon s3 ?
What`s the difference between amazon cloudfront and amazon s3 ?
#4
Posted 31 December 2011 - 03:42 AM
Alexander
-
- Moderators
-
- 4,120 posts
It's Science!
- Location:Vancouver, Eh! Cleverness: 200
S3 is meant primarily as storage, for example data up to 5 terabytes (5000 gigabytes) to hand large files out to users. This could be helpful for large sites that have a lot of user content (i.e. video sites)
Now that you mention it, S3 has a free tier up to 5GBs. It may be somewhat lesser quality than CloudFront, however that can certainly offset a bit of cost and even be free if you are under it.
CloudFront intends to be primarily a content distribution network, caring more for cost per performance rather than size, still very cheap.
Now that you mention it, S3 has a free tier up to 5GBs. It may be somewhat lesser quality than CloudFront, however that can certainly offset a bit of cost and even be free if you are under it.
CloudFront intends to be primarily a content distribution network, caring more for cost per performance rather than size, still very cheap.
Be sure to read the updated FAQ! || Health is achieved through the same 10,000 steps.
If a suggested code/method fails, informing us is less important than telling us why or what errors occurred.
If a suggested code/method fails, informing us is less important than telling us why or what errors occurred.
#5
Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:28 PM
bbqroast
-
- Members
-
- 554 posts
Codecall Addict
- Location:/etc/passwd
s3 maybe? That is what theoatmeal.com uses for its images. And it also has APIs.
Please, write clearly with proper structure. Double spacing makes the text feel un-jointed, Capitalizing Every Word Means People Stop Before Every Word Sub-Consciously Which Is A Pain In The Backside, and use code tags! (The right most styling box).
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
